By Jaewoo Choo

South Korean Legislative Elections: Park’s Government in Grave Position

The results of
South Korea’s legislative
elections on April 13 took many by surprise, as the ruling party was
roundly defeated by two opposition parties. Not too long before the elections,
many — including the ruling party itself — had predicted that the opposition
parties would not be able to win half the seats in the National Assembly. At
one point the ruling party was confident that they would win as many as 170 out
of the 300 seats in the Assembly. Their optimism was based simply on the split
of the opposition party in February. Polls ahead of election also supported their
optimism.

The split
resulted from factional politics and the consequence was the establishment of a
new party, the People’s Party. It was assumed that the split would lead to the
ruling party’s expected landslide victory. However, it instead dealt the ruling
party a devastating loss. The two opposition parties combined to take the
majority of the seats in the Assembly, 161, while the ruling party merely won 122.
The main opposition party, the Together Democratic Party, won 123 seats while
the People’s Party stormed through with 38.

The cause of the
ruling party’s loss varies by perspective. One can attribute it to the ruling
party’s arrogance as it took for granted that the split would benefit its
cause. The other perspective argues strongly for the President’s negative role
in causing the late split in the ruling party’s leadership as Park Geun-hye
allegedly wanted to manipulate the nomination process to her own benefit.

President Park
has long been critical of the ruling party for not being efficient in passing legislation
— including the service industry bill and the labor reform bills — that she had
envisioned as necessary for the success of her vision of the well-being of the
nation, despite the ruling party’s comfortable majority of 152 seats in the
Assembly. It was reported that the President had said in the Cabinet meeting
held the day before the election that “the government has propelled the service
industry bill and labor reform bills, aiming to create jobs and economic
growth, yet such efforts have been blocked by the parliament.”

To secure a more
cooperative parliament, it has been alleged that the President wanted to
influence the nomination process so that more of her own men and women would be
elected. Her influence was met with great opposition from those in the ruling
party’s leadership who wanted candidates to be nominated through a bottom-up
process based on internal polling. Most of those that were deemed to be members
of Park’s political faction lost, while those shunned by the process and who
had run independently won.

These
independent candidates have applied for party membership and the ruling party has
decided to approve their application out of desperation. If all who applied are
approved, it will increase the ruling party’s seats to 129, overtaking the main
opposition party’s 123 as the major party in the parliament, but not as a
majority powerhouse. Instead, the third party will be expected to be a swing
power when it comes to voting in the parliament, giving it much more
flexibility and room for maneuverability between the ruling party and the major
opposition party.

Under the
circumstances, President Park’s government will be greatly challenged by the
legislature on both domestic and foreign policy fronts for the remainder of her
tenure, which will end in 2017.

Opposition
Expected to Fight to Revert Bills

There are three
major domestic policy issues that the opposition parties will seek to revert.
One is the nationalization of South Korea’s history textbook. Another is
service industry reform and the labor reform bills. The third is the national
intelligence bill.

The
nationalization of the history textbook was one of the most controversial projects
that the government tried to advance last year. It unilaterally decided to
carry out the endeavor and established a panel of writers and historians
without properly consulting with parliament or soliciting public opinion. Those
invited to contribute to the government’s cause were at minimum regarded to
hold favorable views toward contentious issues such as the era of military rule
by the president’s late father and longtime strongman Park Chung-hee. The government instead denounced opposition
lawmakers and critics as impediments to its statecraft.

Two days after
the election, both opposition parties issued a statement that proclaimed their
first collaborative work would be to stop the nationalization of the history
textbook. It is not surprising as the government’s decision was long regarded
as an act of defiance for its failure to build consensus among the Korean
populace. The government’s effort is perceived as a refutation of resurrected
facts that were once denied by Park’s father. She wants to refute them as they are
perceived to have unfairly treated her father’s past leadership and
achievements. For instance, her father’s coming to power through a military
coup would be described as a revolution, thereby justifying the legitimacy of his
leadership with such political implications as mass support and participation.

Two days after the election, both opposition parties issued a
statement that proclaimed their first collaborative work would be to stop the
nationalization of the history textbook.

On the economic
front, President Park pushed the parliament last year to pass a couple of
bills. One is on labor reform and the other is on service industry reform. Both
were advocated as being critical to the revitalization of the stagnating Korean
economy. The government claims the “Basic Act on the Development of the Service
Industry” will create 690,000 jobs over next 15 years. The bill is designed to
provide the legal basis for financial support and deregulation in the service
sector, which will lead to deregulation of service sectors at the public level
including medicine and education. Opponents however argue that the deregulation
will only bring greater economic burdens to the public. With respect to the
labor bill, the opposition parties are determined not to pass the bill, which
has been pending at the Assembly. Their argument that it will only allow “easy
layoffs” and expand the number of nonguaranteed contract workers has been well
received by the public. The opposition has also argued that the bill will only
serve the interests of conglomerates and entrepreneurs who are only interested
in maximizing their profits by minimizing costs including wages.

The last domestic
issue that the two opposition parties are determined to revoke is the
counterterrorism act that was passed on March 2, despite the opposition’s
efforts to block it through a record-setting 192-hour filibuster. The bill was
passed with success after revision, garnering 156 votes. While the ruling party’s
152 legislators voted for the act, the revised content was accepted by some
opposition party and independent legislators. Since most of the opposition
party members oppose the act, they are determined to revoke it to the extent to
nullify the bill. The problem with the act is that while it gives authority and
power to the National Intelligence Service to investigate suspected terrorists,
there is no proper institution that can check possible abuses of power by the
Service. The lack of institutions to serve the goal and purpose of the act will
be greatly challenged by the opposition parties who will try to either amend or
revoke it.

Key
Foreign Policy Issues Likely to be Challenged

The newly
assembled Korean parliament will likely face challenges in the following two
critical foreign policy issues. One is inter-Korean relations, especially the
closure of the Gaesung Industrial Complex as a result of the fourth North
Korean nuclear test in February. The other is the deployment of the THAAD
(Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile system to South Korea. Since the
issue became the target of public debate following the third North Korean
nuclear test in 2013, the opposition parties have maintained a consistent position
in questioning the military efficiency, economic costs and the security dilemma
it will pose against China. For these reasons, they have opposed the deployment
of THAAD to the Korean peninsula. Starting this year, the United States and South
Korea have made some progress with their discussion on the subject after forming
a negotiation institution earlier this year. However, it is most likely to run
into opposing pressure in parliament, stalling the negotiations.

When it comes to
inter-Korean relations, both opposition parties prefer engagement to
containment and deterrence. Inherently proponents of the Sunshine policy that
was developed by their predecessor, former president Kim Dae-jung at the turn
of the millennium, they both value the importance of engagement in dissuading
Pyongyang from advancing its nuclear aspirations. Hence both opposition parties
are likely to seek ways to resume the suspended Gaesung Industrial Complex.
They resent the shutdown of the Complex not only for its impact on inter-Korean
relations, but also for the economic damage inflicted on the small and medium sized
businesses of their compatriots.

The consequence
of losing the legislative elections will significantly undermine President
Park’s leadership. The challenge by the opposition parties on both domestic and
diplomatic fronts if followed through as analyzed above will lead to the
President becoming a lame duck much earlier than expected, and South Korean
politics will likely be dominated by the Assembly for the remainder of her
presidency.